DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-20 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims 1 and 11 no longer fall in different classifications, do not have divergent subject matter, and do not require a different field of search. In view of the amended claims, this argument is persuasive and the Restriction Requirement of December 5, 2025 is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 16 and 19 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/271,273 in view of John (US 2008/0061961).
Instant Application
Copending Application
Reason
1, 11
1, 11
Claim 1 recites all of the same limitations except for the waveform generator to generate a waveform. However John describes it is known in the art for a generator 22 to generate waveforms for providing to a plurality of spaced-apart stimulation electrodes ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a waveform generator to provide stimulation waveforms to stimulation electrodes as it is known in the art and would yield predictable results.
2, 12
1, 11
3-4, 17
4
5, 18
1
Claim 5 requires the stimulation parameters comprise one or more of a frequency and an amplitude. John teaches frequency and amplitude are common parameters for stimulation ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the stimulation parameters to comprise one or more of a frequency and an amplitude as it is known in the art and would yield predictable results.
6, 13-15
5, 15
7, 16
6, 16
8, 19
7, 17
9
1
10, 20
3, 13
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 10-11, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17 of copending Application No. 19/271,267 in view of John (US 2008/0061961).
Instant Application
Copending Application
Reason
1, 11
15, 17
Claim 1 recites all of the same limitations except for the waveform generator to generate a waveform. However John describes it is known in the art for a generator 22 to generate waveforms for providing to a plurality of spaced-apart stimulation electrodes ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a waveform generator to provide stimulation waveforms to stimulation electrodes as it is known in the art and would yield predictable results.
10, 20
16
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing device” in claims 11, 14; “data portal device” in claims 7-8, 16, 19. The term “wearable device” as recited in independent claims 1, 11 and subsequent dependent claims is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because even though the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language, claims 1 and 11 define the wearable device “comprises a band”, therefore providing structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John (US 2008/0061961) in view of Prochazka (US 2010/0016929), Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361).
Regarding claim 1, John discloses a system for reducing tremor ([0107]; “treatment can be provided for… movement… disorders” [0153], [0159]), the system comprising: a plurality of spaced-apart stimulation electrodes 15 ([0054]); a waveform generator 22 (fig. 2b; [0056-0057]); a processor 20 (fig. 2b) configured to cause the waveform generator to generate a waveform that is provided to one or more of the plurality of spaced-apart stimulation electrodes ([0059]), wherein the waveform comprises one or more stimulation parameters ([0056]); and one or more sensors 24 configured to obtain data corresponding to one or more characteristics or movements of the user ([0057]); wherein the one or more characteristics or movements of the user comprise tremor characteristics ([0159]).
John does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of spaced-apart stimulation electrodes are positioned on a wearable device so as to provide transcutaneous electrical stimulation of at least a median nerve of a user, wherein the wearable device comprises a band, and wherein the band is configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user. Prochazka discloses it is known in the art to treat a user’s tremor (“The invention can be applied to treat various conditions in which stimulation to either activate or block neural impulses is required. Such conditions can include movement disorders (e.g., spasticity, hypertonus, rigidity, tremor and/or muscle weakness, Parkinson's disease, dystonia, cerebral palsy)” [0076]) with one or more spaced-apart stimulation electrodes 20 (fig. 3-4) configured to apply a nerve stimulation waveform to at least a median nerve 46 of the user ([0098-0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John and try delivering the waveform to a median nerve of the user via one or more spaced-apart stimulation electrodes as taught by Prochazka in order to provide peripheral nerve stimulation ([0043]) that is more targeted to specific extremities (“The median nerve 46 innervates most of the flexor muscles in front of the forearm, most of the short muscles of the thumb, and the short muscles of the hand” [0098]) and can assist in restoring normal functioning ([0101]), the application of use of one or more spaced-apart electrodes known in the art to obtain predictable results.
Wu et al. teaches it is known in the art to focus stimulation to the median nerve ([0057]) with the use of a band (fig. 4) configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user for positioning spaced-apart electrodes S1-S4 at a skin surface above targeted nerves ([0028], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of John to comprise a band configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user as taught by Wu et al. as using a band to position the spaced-apart electrodes over the nerves is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
John does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to adjust the one or more stimulation parameters to reduce the user’s tremor based on processing of the data using one or more machine learning algorithms. Burdick et al. teaches applying a machine learning algorithm to a stimulation system where adjustments to neurostimulation are performed based on information received from sensors is known in the art ([0191-0194]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to apply one or more machine learning algorithms to the system as taught by Burdick et al. in order to more efficiently search for effective parameter combinations ([0196]).
John does not expressly disclose wherein the processing of the data using the one or more machine learning algorithms is configured to be performed, at least in part, on a cloud-based network or server. Burdick et al. teaches one or more processors 12 local to a user may also interact with one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server 49 (“The computing device 12 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as remote computer 49… remote computer 49 may be another computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a client, a memory storage device, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computing device 12” [0215-0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to provide one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server as taught by Burdick et al. in order to establish network communication between the local processor and other computing devices that may have remote memory storage that can be accessible by other users ([0215-0217]).
Regarding claim 2, John discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise motion sensors (“accelerometer” [0146]; “motion detector” [0159]) and John in view of Burdick et al. disclose the one or more machine learning algorithms comprise a learning algorithm ([0191-0192], [0196-0198]) configured to tailor the one or more stimulation parameters over time to adjust to the user’s tremor ([0191-0194]).
Regarding claim 3, John discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise motion sensors (“accelerometer” [0146]; “motion detector” [0159]).
Regarding claim 5, John discloses wherein the one or more stimulation parameters comprises one or more of a frequency and an amplitude ([0056]).
Regarding claim 6, John in view of Wu et al. disclose wherein the wearable device comprises the processor (“coupling unit 220 may include a controller for performing stimulus control and/or received signal processing functions” [0032]; fig. 2) and the one or more sensors E1-E4 ([0028]).
Regarding claim 7, John does not disclose wherein the wearable device is configured to wirelessly communicate with a data portal device configured to receive the data, the data portal device further configured to transmit the data to the cloud-based network or server for processing of the data, and wherein the data portal device is a smartphone or tablet computer. Burdick et al. teaches it is known in the art for a wearable device 150 to wirelessly communicate with a data portal device 152 (“The external control unit 150 may connected via a connection 154 (e.g., a USB connection, wireless connection, and the like) to an external computing device 152” [0099]), the data portal device further configured to transmit the data to a cloud-based network or server 157 ([0100]) for processing the data, and wherein the data portal device is a smartphone or tablet computer (“tablet computing device” [0101], [0215], “other means of and communications devices for establishing a communications link between the computers may be used” [0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to include a data portal device for communicating data between wearable device and the cloud-based network or server as taught by Burdick et al. in order to provide a communications device capable of acting as an intermediary linking the wearable device to the cloud-based server for more effective transferring of data, the data portal device in the form of a smartphone or tablet as it is a known type of device useful for transmitting data between two devices, the results of such a modification being predictable in the art.
Regarding claim 8, John in view of Burdick et al. disclose wherein the data portal device is configured to perform analysis of the data ([0152]).
Regarding claim 9, John discloses wherein the processing of the data is configured to be performed, at least in part, by the processor ([0057]).
Regarding claim 11, John discloses a system for reducing tremor ([0107]; “treatment can be provided for… movement… disorders” [0153], [0159]), the system comprising: a plurality of electrodes 15 ([0054]); one or more sensors 24 configured to obtain data corresponding to one or more characteristics or movements of the user ([0057]); a generator 22 (fig. 2b; [0056-0057]) configured to provide electrical stimulation to at least one of the plurality of electrodes ([0059]), wherein the electrical stimulation comprises one or more stimulation parameters ([0056]); a computing device 20 (fig. 2b) wherein the computing device is configured to set or adjust the one or more stimulation parameters to reduce the user’s tremor based on processing of the data corresponding to the one or more characteristics or movements of the user that is received from the one or more sensors ([0056-0059], [0086]).
John does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality electrodes are positioned on a wearable device so as to provide transcutaneous electrical stimulation of at least a median nerve of a user, wherein the wearable device comprises a band, and wherein the band is configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user. Prochazka discloses it is known in the art to treat a user’s tremor (“The invention can be applied to treat various conditions in which stimulation to either activate or block neural impulses is required. Such conditions can include movement disorders (e.g., spasticity, hypertonus, rigidity, tremor and/or muscle weakness, Parkinson's disease, dystonia, cerebral palsy)” [0076]) with one or more electrodes 20 (fig. 3-4) configured to apply a nerve stimulation waveform to at least a median nerve 46 of the user ([0098-0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John and try delivering the waveform to a median nerve of the user via one or more electrodes as taught by Prochazka in order to provide peripheral nerve stimulation ([0043]) that is more targeted to specific extremities (“The median nerve 46 innervates most of the flexor muscles in front of the forearm, most of the short muscles of the thumb, and the short muscles of the hand” [0098]) and can assist in restoring normal functioning ([0101]), the application of use of one or more electrodes known in the art to obtain predictable results.
Wu et al. teaches it is known in the art to focus stimulation to the median nerve ([0057]) with the use of a band (fig. 4) configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user for positioning spaced-apart electrodes S1-S4 at a skin surface above targeted nerves ([0028], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of John to comprise a band configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user as taught by Wu et al. as using a band to position the electrodes over the nerves is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
John does not expressly disclose wherein the data is processed using one or more machine learning algorithms. Burdick et al. teaches applying a machine learning algorithm to a stimulation system where adjustments to neurostimulation are performed based on information received from sensors is known in the art ([0191-0194]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to apply one or more machine learning algorithms to the system as taught by Burdick et al. in order to more efficiently search for effective parameter combinations ([0196]).
John does not expressly disclose wherein the processing of the data using the one or more machine learning algorithms is configured to be performed, at least in part, on a cloud-based network or server. Burdick et al. teaches one or more processors 12 local to a user may also interact with one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server 49 (“The computing device 12 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as remote computer 49… remote computer 49 may be another computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a client, a memory storage device, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computing device 12” [0215-0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to provide one or more computing devices of a cloud-based server as taught by Burdick et al. in order to establish network communication between the local processor and other computing devices that may have remote memory storage that can be accessible by other users ([0215-0217]).
Regarding claim 12, John in view of Burdick et al. disclose the one or more machine learning algorithms comprise a learning algorithm ([0191-0192], [0196-0198]) configured to tailor the one or more stimulation parameters over time to adjust to the user’s tremor ([0191-0194]).
Regarding claim 13, John in view of Wu et al. disclose wherein the wearable device comprises the one or more sensors E1-E4 ([0028]).
Regarding claim 14, John in view of Wu et al. disclose wherein the wearable device comprises the plurality of electrodes S1-S4 ([0028], [0047]), the generator 130 (fig. 1), the computing device (“coupling unit 220 may include a controller for performing stimulus control and/or received signal processing functions” [0032]; fig. 2) and the one or more sensors E1-E4 ([0028]), and wherein the processing of the data is performed, at least in part, by the computing device ([0029-0032]).
Regarding claim 15, John in view of Wu et al. disclose wherein the plurality of electrodes S1-S4 ([0028], [0047]) and the one or more sensors E1-E4 ([0028]) are positioned on the band (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, John does not disclose wherein the wearable device is configured to wirelessly communicate with a data portal device configured to receive the data, the data portal device further configured to transmit the data to the cloud-based network or server for processing of the data. Burdick et al. teaches it is known in the art for a wearable device 150 to wirelessly communicate with a data portal device 152 (“The external control unit 150 may connected via a connection 154 (e.g., a USB connection, wireless connection, and the like) to an external computing device 152” [0099]), the data portal device further configured to transmit the data to a cloud-based network or server 157 ([0100]) for processing the data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to include a data portal device for communicating data between wearable device and the cloud-based network or server as taught by Burdick et al. in order to provide a communications device capable of acting as an intermediary linking the wearable device to the cloud-based server for more effective transferring of data, the results of such a modification being predictable in the art.
Regarding claim 17, John discloses wherein the one or more characteristics or movements of the user comprise at least a tremor characteristic (“tremor size” [0107]).
Regarding claim 18, John discloses wherein the one or more stimulation parameters comprises one or more of a frequency and an amplitude ([0056]).
Regarding claim 19, John does not disclose wherein the processing of the data is performed, at least in part, on a data portal device, and wherein the data portal device is a smartphone or tablet computer. Burdick et al. teaches it is known in the art for a wearable device 150 to wirelessly communicate with a data portal device 152 (“The external control unit 150 may connected via a connection 154 (e.g., a USB connection, wireless connection, and the like) to an external computing device 152” [0099]), the data portal device is configured to perform analysis of the data ([0152]) and wherein the data portal device is a smartphone or tablet computer (“tablet computing device” [0101], [0215], “other means of and communications devices for establishing a communications link between the computers may be used” [0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to include a data portal device for communicating data between wearable device as taught by Burdick et al. in order to provide a separate device with more processing capabilities, the data portal device in the form of a smartphone or tablet as it is a known type of device useful for transmitting data between two devices, the results of such a modification being predictable in the art.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John (US 2008/0061961) in view of Prochazka (US 2010/0016929), Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and further in view of Giuffrida et al. (US 2013/0123666).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, John does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more characteristics or movements of the user comprise motion of the wrist of the user. Giuffrida et al. discloses it is known in the art for treatment of a movement disorder ([0088]) to use sensors to obtain data corresponding to one or more characteristics or movements of the user such as motion of the wrist of the user ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more sensors of John (“accelerometer” [0146]; “motion detector” [0159]) to detection motion of the wrist of the user as taught by Giuffrida et al. as the application of these sensors to detect motion of the wrist of the user is known in the art to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John (US 2008/0061961) in view of Prochazka (US 2010/0016929) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and further in view of Gross et al. (US 2013/0066393).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, John discloses wherein the adjustment of the one or more stimulation parameters to reduce the user’s tremor comprises real-time adjustment based on the data ([0067], [0086]). John in view of Prochazka disclose wherein the plurality of spaced-apart stimulation electrodes comprise at least one electrode 20 for contact with the user at a skin surface above the median nerve 46, and at least one electrode 20 for contact with the user at a skin surface above a radial nerve 50 (fig. 4; [0100]). John does not expressly disclose at least one electrode for contact with the user at a skin surface above an ulnar nerve. Gross et al. teaches it is known in the art to deliver stimulation to the ulnar nerves to treat tremor ([0124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify John to provide at least one electrode for contact with the user at a skin surface above an ulnar nerve as taught by Gross et al. as it is a known stimulation location to effectively treat tremors, such a modification being reasonably predictable. The limitation, “wherein the system is configured to provide transcutaneous electrical stimulation for up to 24 hours in a day” is a matter of intended use, and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796